哈工大博士英语考试冲刺试题三
Passage 1
The realm of product liability is one that has always put legal scholars and practitioners at odds. Viewed by some as genuine efforts to protect the public from dangerous goods and others as an excu for dirty lawyers to sue rich companies, the matter has yet to be resolved. Product liability, and its implications for disgruntled consumers wishing to sue the makers of what they buy, continues to be debated.
Tho who argue that current product liability laws are positive asrt that without such laws, manufacturers would be free to do as they plea without regard for the safety of the consumers who buy their products. As a result, they argue, shoddy merchandi would emerge, with every possible corner cut in order to lower costs, at the expen of quality. Not only would the shoddy merchandi be a rip-off, however, but the products could likely be harmful as well. Proponents of this point of view hail the new wave of warning labels and incread quality assurance that has resulted from recent product liab
食分
ility legislation, confident in their conviction that it has made the American marketplace a safer place to shop.
Opponents of the current status-quo, however, cite the overwhelming amount of litigation that has taken place as a result of stricter product liability. A moderate approach id advid by this group, between the necessary safeguards that would prevent abu of the system by the companies and the excessive consumer-protection laws that allow producers to be sued at the drop of a hat. The people argue that greed and the alluring possibility of easy money lead unscrupulous buyers to look for any excu to bring minor grievances to court, hoping for a million-dollar outcome.
As the situation stands now, the former camp is getting its way, reflecting society's priority of safety over economics. Recent lobbying by producers have begun to shift the tide, however, as abu of product liability laws continues and grows, courts are beginning to note the trend and take appropriate measures, casting a keener eye on such cas so as to distinguish between frivolous cas and more rious claims. In regard to the future of
product liability legislation and its relation to our ever increasingly litigious society, only time will tell.
1.It is stated that consumers who bring product liability problems to litigation ____
A.Are primarily motivated by the possibility of quick money through a lawsuit
B.Suffer injures from faulty merchandi and derve appropriate compensation闲客
C.Will find their options limited in the future as product liability laws will move toward a more moderate position
D.Bring their issues to litigation bad on both legitimate and profit-eking groups
2.Manufacturers in the text tend to ____
A.Invariable produce dangerous products that require legislation to ensure safety
B.Hold profit and cost-cutting in higher regard than consumer safety
法国爆发大规模抗议
孙子兵法下载C.Be the victims of a legal institution that unfairly targets them
D.Be bound by the current system, causing them to take caution in producing their products
3.Tho who favor less strict product liability laws believe that ____
A.Such laws curb producers' ability to create shoddy merchandi to attain greater profit
B.The laws need to be modified to better rve the needs both consumers and producers
knikaC.The result of such laws have been positive thus far, but need to be modified
D.Strict product liability laws are unnecessary and should be dispod of
4.The author's attitude toward the issue ems to be ____
generationalA.Biad
B.Puzzling
C.Objective
D.Indifferent
5.The main purpo of this text is to ____
blightA.Prent two opposing sides of an argument for the reader's consideration
B.Educate the reader about the effect of product liability legislation on the legal system
C.Convince the reader that product liability laws need to be changed
D.Inform the reader of the current status of product liability laws
Passage 2
海湾地区
collectThe continuing and justified alarm over illegal drug u by the young has obscured an underlying problem that is larger and ever more threatening to society. It is an epidemic of legal drug abu that is just what the doctor ordered.
Depressing, social inadequacy, anxiety, apathy, marital disorder, children's misbehavior and other psychological problems are usually solved by physicians with prescription pads. Psychologists as well as physicians of every other sociality now prescribe a wide variety of mood-altering drugs for patients with emotional, motivational and learning problems, and even the mildest psychological discomforts. It is time for an immediate examination of the role that psychoactive drugs play in human life.
We must combat the medical-psychiatric model of human behavior that eks a drug for every psychological discomfort and under which a person who is not continuously calm, anxiety-free, happy and content is defined as a medical patient.
We must question a medical approach in which psychoactive drugs are ud as an easy solution, a simple acceptable way to avoid dealing with personal and interpersonal problems. Such “treatment” is counterproductive: it does not solve the underlying problems, it keeps the person from learning how to cope with his world, it often reduces a person’s willingness to interact with others, and it may actually impair the body’s lf-regu
lating psychological functions. In addition, it deceives the medical and psychiatric professions into fal curity by suggesting that there is no urgent need for further rearch, no need for the development of more humanistic approaches.
